From: dunstan@ic.net (J.D. House)
Subject: Age Of Renaissance Critique
Over the holiday break my friends and I have played two games of Age of Ren
(one 6 player and one 4 player) and each and every one of us are deeply
disapointed by this game. Civilization is one of our all time favorites and
we play it regularly (in person as well as many, many email games) and I was
very much looking forward to a "sequal", but after our experiences I don't
know if I'll ever bother playing AOR again, which annoys me because I spent so
much money on it.
First off, I really dislike the system of income being almost completely
dependent on the sheer number of "cities" you control. Sure, you gain extra
cash if a commodity card happens to get played, but that's more of a bonus
than anything else. I dislike this system of income because it means that
anyone left behind in expansion after the first three turns has absolutely no
chance to catch up. In both games we played there were one or two players who
were quickly cut off from expanding eastward and the other players became so
powerful so quickly that those left behind just sat there in a bored stupor
for the last 5-6 hours of the game. This problem is exacerbated by the most
powerful players reciving even more income from the commodity cards.
Avalon Hill could have overcome this problem by making the cards more
advantageous to weaker nations, but the cards are neither advantageous to
anyone but the powerful, nor are they very interesting.
The commodity cards benefit no one but the rich, plain and simple. Even if
London corners the market in Wool and then is lucky enough for a wool card to
be played, big deal. Wool provides so little income that this rare bonus is
not much of a help at all.
Of the event cards, the only one that is the slightest bit disasterous to
anyone is War, and that has an even chance to be harmful to both the player
playing it and the one receiving it. Every one of the other event cards is a
mere annoyance at best, especially to a strong, rich empire who can recover
from it without batting an eye. Again, these cards hurt only weaker players
who have a hard time recovering from any setback.
And then the Leader cards. These cards are just boring. They don't do
anything but give you credits to purchase advances and certainly don't help
weaker players come back from behind.
I do like the misery index, however. I think that this could have been a good
way to strike a balance between those who start off the game in strong
position and those who don't. However, this again inhances the power of the
strong and decreases that of the weak. It is too easy for a rich player, to
purchase multiple tiers of advances and lesson his/her misery and it is
difficult (if not impossible) for a player who cannot afford an entire tier to
lesson his/hers. If it were possible for weaker players to somehow force
powerful players to gain misery, that might help, but that is not the case.
Lest you think I'm just griping because I didn't do well in either game, I
came in second in the 6 player game but I did very poorly in the 4 player
game. In this way I got to see the game from both perspectives and when it
comes down to it, I didn't have fun either time. Winning or losing was all
the same... boring. Doing well didn't seem like an accomplishment because I
started off strong and it wasn't difficult to destroy those who didn't, and
losing was just miserable because the game provided absolutely no strategy to
make a comeback after the third turn. At that point it was obvious that there
was nothing I could do... not one damn thing even to hope for to help me
improve my standing.
Advanced Civilization is a brilliant, fun, and constantly entertaining game
but Age of Renaissance is just plain boring and not much fun at all. I think
I would have been much happier if Avalon Hill would have just made another
expansion set to Adv. Civ., allowing players to move ahead further in time.
At least that might have cost less than the $55 I spent on AOR.
-J.D. House
dunstan@ic.net
From: rikoshae@u.washington.edu (B Mansfield)
Subject: Re: Age Of Renaissance Critique
dunstan@ic.net (J.D. House) writes:
>First off, I really dislike the system of income being almost completely
>dependent on the sheer number of "cities" you control. Sure, you gain extra
>cash if a commodity card happens to get played, but that's more of a bonus
>than anything else. I dislike this system of income because it means that
>anyone left behind in expansion after the first three turns has absolutely no
>chance to catch up. In both games we played there were one or two players who
>were quickly cut off from expanding eastward and the other players became so
>powerful so quickly that those left behind just sat there in a bored stupor
>for the last 5-6 hours of the game. This problem is exacerbated by the most
>powerful players reciving even more income from the commodity cards.
This isn't as much of a problem as you make it out to be, mostly because
the per turn income from dominated markets isn't really all that much
money, compared to other income sourses. In the beginning of the game, a
difference of one or two "cities" (ie. dominated markets) between the
strongest and weakest player should not have such a dramatic impact on the
game. In the four games I've played it seems to be more important where
the cities go rather than how many you lay down; Paris, for example, can
grab many with caravan in the early game, but several of these are stone-
essentially worthless in the long run. On the other hand, when Venice,
say, goes east immediatly, and buys boats rather than 10 extra tokens in
the early run, it sacrifices extra cities for more profitable locations.
In the end it does balance out.
The one area of income that hasn't been mentioned is Interest & Profit
which, in the games I've played, has had the biggest impact on who comes
out on top at the end. Simply put, in the mid game if you have I&P, and
make sure you hold some cash every turn, you will do much better than
those who have more cities but not I&P.
And don't belittle the commodities either; the player who dominate
markets willy-nilly, in order to get the most cities out there, will
eventlually fall to the player that places his cities strategically and
plans for the long haul. It might seem like a far shot to bet on drawing
one of the few "spice" cards, for instance, but in my experience there's a
good chance of getting a big pay off if you invest in 2 or 3 commodities;
the odds of one coming to you are better than average (depending on the
bumber of players, of course).
>The commodity cards benefit no one but the rich, plain and simple. Even if
>London corners the market in Wool and then is lucky enough for a wool card to
>be played, big deal. Wool provides so little income that this rare bonus is
>not much of a help at all.
This simply is not true. What if London had cornered the market on spice?
Big pay-off. Again, it's where you place your cities that's important.
>Advanced Civilization is a brilliant, fun, and constantly entertaining game
>but Age of Renaissance is just plain boring and not much fun at all. I think
>I would have been much happier if Avalon Hill would have just made another
>expansion set to Adv. Civ., allowing players to move ahead further in time.
>At least that might have cost less than the $55 I spent on AOR.
This big problem I have with AoR is that every game is essentially the
same; which is also the reason I don't play Ad. Civ anymore. While Civ
might have been rather straightforward, AoR just gets boring to play
simply because the course of action in each game is the same: aquire
advances. The order you aquire them in each game is essentially the same,
and there really isn't any reason to do anything differently since there's
generally one way to play if you want to win (ie. you could spice things
up by makig it your duty to control all of the stone, but let's see you
win with that position). The only difference between one game and the
next is who controls Crete; but it really doesn't make any difference.
This game is, to my mind, only worth one or two playings.
--
Bruce Mansfield
"Drop the lightsaber, farm boy." -BF
rikoshae@u.washington.edu
From: Clinton Eaker
Subject: Re: Age Of Renaissance Critique
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 10:03:48 -0500
J.D. House wrote:
> First off, I really dislike the system of income being almost completely
> dependent on the sheer number of "cities" you control. Sure, you gain extra
> cash if a commodity card happens to get played, but that's more of a bonus
> than anything else. I dislike this system of income because it means that
> anyone left behind in expansion after the first three turns has absolutely no
> chance to catch up. In both games we played there were one or two players who
> were quickly cut off from expanding eastward and the other players became so
> powerful so quickly that those left behind just sat there in a bored stupor
> for the last 5-6 hours of the game. This problem is exacerbated by the most
> powerful players reciving even more income from the commodity cards.
How is this different from Adv. Civ? The number of trade cards you get
is dependent on how many cities you have. It seems to me that trade
cards in AdvCiv are the same as cash in AoR. I think you should give
the game another chance, but if your mind is made up, how much would you
take for your copy?
> Avalon Hills could have overcome this problem by making the cards more
> advantageous to weaker nations, but the cards are neither advantageous to
> anyone but the powerful, nor are they very interesting.
>
> The commodity cards benefit no one but the rich, plain and simple. Even if
> London corners the market in Wool and then is lucky enough for a wool card to
> be played, big deal. Wool provides so little income that this rare bonus is
> not much of a help at all.
>
> Of the event cards, the only one that is the slightest bit disasterous to
> anyone is War, and that has an even chance to be harmful to both the player
> playing it and the one receiving it. Every one of the other event cards is a
> mere annoyance at best, especially to a strong, rich empire who can recover
> from it without batting an eye. Again, these cards hurt only weaker players
> who have a hard time recovering from any setback.
>
> And then the Leader cards. These cards are just boring. They don't do
> anything but give you credits to purchase advances and certainly don't help
> weaker players come back from behind.
Now that you understand the consequences of getting behind in the
number of cities you have, or getting blocked from eastern expansion,
why don't you give the game one more try? Yes, it is hard to recover
when you get behind in expansion. Don't let that happen. Every player
starts with enough cash to get a ship upgrade and 30 tokens on their
first turn. As for getting cut off, try negotiating with other players
like Paris and Barcelona for 'jumping-off' spots in Southern Spain or
Northern Africa.
> I do like the misery index, however.
I like it too, but it can be very frustrating.
> Advanced Civilization is a brilliant, fun, and constantly entertaining game
> but Age of Renaissance is just plain boring and not much fun at all. I think
> I would have been much happier if Avalon Hill would have just made another
> expansion set to Adv. Civ., allowing players to move ahead further in time.
> At least that might have cost less than the $55 I spent on AOR.
It seems that everyone that plays AoR either really enjoys it,
or is thoroughly disappointed. The common thread I've found among
those that are disappointed is that most seem to be expecting a
sequal to AdvCiv. AoR is *not* a sequal to AdvCiv. Try again
without comparing it to AdvCiv, but if you've made up your mind,
then I'm serious about the offer to buy your copy.
Clint